The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-28

new question:, Out ne SnOulQ ike u
argue it. Nov I make the assertion,
said Tucker, that the right to be lex
empt from unreasonable searches ant
seizures. the right of freedom O
speech, the right of citizens agains
self-accusation, and the right of thu
citizen not to be twice tried by &
jury are 8 cured to him by virtue
of the Constitution of the United States
Being so the fourteenth amendment
comes in and says: No State shall
make or enforce any law which abribges
the rights or privileges of citizens,
Turning to the action and rulings Of
the trial curt, Mr.. Tucker said: DE
Tense we're driven to peremptory chal-
lenges in order to exclude jurors who
should be exempt for cause ami
thereby was the limitation of, right
of peremptory challenge, which This
Court has held to be one of the highest
| privileges of the prisoner. The last
todr jurors" said Mr.. Tucker, "were
put upon US after our peremptorv chal-
lenges had been exhausted. In one
case-Juror Denker-we objected dis
| tlnctly, upon the ground that the ruling
of the Court was in violation of the
Constitution"
Tucker then referred to the seizure of
letters, private papers, etc, and their
use as evidence, and said this was in
violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Ia conclusion, Tucker said: 1--WE
have the right. in nv Judgment, to the
writ and TO be heard on the question
whether the Constitution has been VIC
lated in order to compass the conviction
of these men. 1t is true, they are said
to be Anarchists. but they are men and
cd 10
am. know no anarchy abroad in this
land, which the American people need
fear, except anarchy in the administra
ton OF justice. l pray the Court will,
therefore, award this writ, for if 1 do
not mistake, there are evidences in the
whole record which will demand a
reversal of judgment"
HUNTS ARGUMENT.
Attorney General Hunt then ad-
dressed the Court, in behalf of the
State and ia opposition to the motion
for the writ of error. ITO warrant the
issuance of the writ, it must appear,
he said, from the record, first, that
there is Federal question involved,
and, second, that such question
was raised and decided in the State
Court" He was not as well informed
as he would like to oe in regard to the
exact points upon which counsel for the
peti TONERS relied. In the first part of
the argument of Mr.. Tucker. he planted
himself squarely upon the rights which
belonged to his clients under the
fourteenth amendment. but in
the latter part hs changed
ground slightly and insisted that
the first ten amendments were
declarations of individual rights, and
then that they were all comprised IN
the provisions of the fourteenth amend
ment. the Attorney-General opposed
this view, and said, $50 far as the petit
TONERS rely upon ANYTHING contained
in those amendments tn " eau have no
st anding III this Court. The .ourteenth
amendment is equally foreign to any
right, privilege or immunity here
claimed by the petitioners. The record
will show that the complaint is not that
the State made or is enforcing the law
any of the privileges or immunities
tIey are deprived of rights by an erro-
neous construction of the law, placed
upon it by the trial court of the State
The petitioners did not claim in the
Suoreme Court Of the State that the
Iuinois act of 1884 was repugnant to
the Constitution, treaties or laws
of the United States nor that the
authority of the Court was exercised
under it, but that the act was constltu-
tional and valid and the Court exercised
its power in violation of that law. The
petitioners were tried in the courts of
the State, under the laws Of the State
and that constitutes due process of
law 1t Is not material that this or
another Court might have ruled
differently under the law; due
process of law means the law of
the land"
Mr.. Hunt then cited the case of
Presser VS.. the State of Illinois, re-
garding the militia laws of the S ate.
This decision forecloses and bars out
the contention of counsel that the
rights contemplated in the language of
the first ten amendments were included
IN the fourteenth amendment and ex-
tended especial guarantee and immun-
tiles to the citizens of the United
8 a es."
Attorney General Hunt then turned
his attention to the Constitutional pro-
vision, THAT no State shall deny to any
p0TSOu equal pTpI0CGlOu VI Lu6 laws,
and submitted to the Court that the
equal protection of the laws" and
privileges and immunities" contem-
plated by the amendment, were
only those for whose enforce
ment Congress had provided by
subsequent legislation, and having
acted, Congress has exhausted the
subject until it chooses to take 1t up
again.
Turning to the composition of tie
Jury in the trial court, the Attorney
General said he did not see how the
personnel of the jury who tried the
petitioners in this case could properly |
30 submitted to the Court or considered |
BY it in the present proceedings. |
This inquiry must be made as to |
the nationality of the jury |
aW of the State of Illinois |
and not as to how the State court may |
have construed that law. The record |
showed. he believed, that on the chal-
enge of one juror the suggestion was
made by one of the counsel for the |
prisoners, that there was q provision In
The Constitution Of Illinois. as well as
In the Constitution of the United !
States, guaranteeing to every person
trial by an impartial jury. The person
at whose challenge that suggestion